The Morning Plum

* With debate finally under way on the financial reform bill, are Dems at risk of squandering an opportunity to capitalize on the unusually high level of populist anger to achieve true and lasting Wall Street reform?

I think that people will look back on the presidency of Barack Obama and they're going to say, "I wonder why so many people had so many anxious moments when they elected the first African American president." 'Cause a lot of this has got to do with that.

Tell that to John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who can't seem to stop criticizing the decision to Mirandize the suspect, even though all indications are that he hasn't stopped talking since.

* Meanwhile, Joe Lieberman is set to introduce his citizenship-stripping bill today along with Dem Rep. Jason Altmire of Pennsylvania. It will be interesting to see how moderate Dems dance around this one.

"Gallup: Dems narrowing the "enthusiasm gap." And: Cillizza says that while Dems face a massive headwind, they may be on the verge of avoiding the doomsday retirements scenario many predicted after Scott Brown's win."

Dems will be fine in November. They won't lose the House. The GOP got nothin'.

"With debate finally under way on the financial reform bill, are Dems at risk of squandering an opportunity to capitalize on the unusually high level of populist anger to achieve true and lasting Wall Street reform? That's what Senate liberals are claiming as they mount an aggressive last-minute push against the White House, which is working to ensure that the bill isn't too tough."

I read the Times article and Sen. Mikulski raises an interesting point. Shouldn't Too-Big-To -Fail fall into the same class as monopolies and be prohibited for like reasons? The concentration on wealth is the greatest threat to our economy and to our country.

And I would like to thank Frankly_my_dear for directing me in an earlier thread to the Supreme Court decision holding that Congress CANNOT pass a law stripping citizenship involuntarily. Lieberman's stunt is yet another attack on our civil liberties under the guise of the War on Terror. The War on Drugs eviscerated the 4th Amendment. I guess it's time the 5th and 14th Amendment get whacked.

Thank god we have the Teabaggers to protect the Constitution and our civil rights. I'm sure they'll be outraged by Lieberman's patently unconstitutional proposal. Ahem.

It's good for Meek that his petition is starting to get some traction now. He has to keep pushing it if he wants to make any real headway and give himself a chance. That said, it is his hometown paper, Miami, that ran the story...as opposed to someone like the Orlando Sentinal, deep in the heart of swing vote territory.

One important thing to look at is the currents and winds. Meek has established himself on the anti-drilling meme, with press to prove it. So if that slick starts coming to Florida, he will likely hammer away at it.

cmccauley, you're asking a really big question but here's a very brief answer:

"Non-U.S. citizens include people with temporary legal status, such as tourist or student visas, people who overstay their visas (e.g., remain in the United States after they must leave) and undocumented immigrants who enter without legal status. Lawful permanent residents maintain permanent residency in the U.S., though they are citizens of other countries."

Constitutional Rights
"1. If arrested, non-U.S. citizens have the right to remain silent and not answer questions until an attorney is present. When facing criminal charges, they have a right to receive free representation. However, individuals charged with immigration violations are not entitled to have an attorney appointed by the court."

Where it gets confusing or less obvious is when we arrest people as enemy combatants and the lines are more blurry there, to me at least.

I think the only fair and accurate answer to your question is no, no one can really give an adeuqate answer to that question in this kind of forum. It is an exceedingly complex question. I said something relevant on the last thread at the end. SCOTUS held in the Quirin case that a Nazi agent could be tried by the military despite his being a US citizen captured here. Beyond that, you would have to study cases before and after Quirin -- Milligan, Hamdi, Padilla, to start with -- to get a fuller picture of what is involved.

I believe the last federal court to rule on this in Padilla's case followed Quirin, and it would thus appear that a US citizen captured here can still be held and tried by the military if he is an enemy combatant. But Padilla was ultimately tried in civilian court, so one could argue the issue.

What you can be sure of is that all these people making confident and absolute declarations that any citizen has the "right" to be Mirandized and be tried in civilian court have little idea what they are talking about.

Formerly posting as Kelley. . . evidently there are four others who got here before me with that name!

I agree with wbgonne about Dems and the "enthusiasm gap": while the Tea Baggers have spent the last year blowing off steam and being rather silly the rest of us have been getting on with our lives. Now that the school year is winding to a close and the elections are starting to appear on the horizon to those who live in the real world, people are starting to get engaged. Talking about mid-term elections 18 (or more) months out as if they were Presidential years is nothing but counter-productive.

The fall in the GOP entusiam will likely tick back up when the election gets into full swing. The question will be if Dems will follow. I'd say there's a good chance they will, but not at the same pace. Ten points is still a large gap, and it would be a big hill to climb if it's that large (or larger) come election time.

There are simply more Democrats in this country than Republicans, so they can afford a bit of an enthusiam gap. I'd say that if it's under 5 points on election day, Dems can stave off any major losses. I think if they can get it even, we might see the Dems make some gains, even in this anti-incumbant climate.

There's still so much time left before then. If good economic news starts to pile up, then look for a Dem rally. Last month's job numbers should be out today or tomorrow...stay tuned.

There is a connection now, being in two wars and devastating economic hardship, and the battle between liberal and conservative over illegal immigration and stripping citizens of their rights. None of this is just coincidental.

In the 30's there was a huge movement to send illegals and even some Mexican American citizens back to Mexico. In a repatriation agreement between Mexico and the US, thousands of migrant workers, citizen children of illegals and even some naturalized citizens were sent south.

In the 40's we had the Japanese American interment camps. The fear of spys and traitors caused us to over react and ruin the lives of thousands of US citizens.

During the Bush years our fear of terrorists overwhelmed our adherence to the law and international standards in treatment of prisoners.

And now, we're seeing the same types of calls for stripping citizens of their rights and calls for harsh treatment of illegals and even their US born children.

Hi Kelley=Michigoose. Sue has a new name as well suekzoo or something like that. We'll try to remember. It's been a little difficult to keep everyone straight, but that's probably just my age showing. Glad you're here and I know Greg is as well. Watch out for the "church lady" censor, it's even worse than before. LOL

You have a point, but I also am not sure that Quirin or Padilla are suitable precedents in this case. This is because they were indeed 'enemy combatants'- Quirin as a spy, and Padilla openly fighting US troops. Shahzad appears to be neither of these things, as a terrorist and an enemy combatant are far from the same thing- murderer (or attempted), versus traitor. This is an important distinction, and if he had been picked up in a sweep for Taliban or al Qaeda in Afghanistan, that trying him as such would be appropriate. However, under the circumstances, this appears to be the correct course of action.

In the 30's there was a huge movement to send illegals and even some Mexican American citizens back to Mexico. In a repatriation agreement between Mexico and the US, thousands of migrant workers, citizen children of illegals and even some naturalized citizens were sent south.

In the 40's we had the Japanese American interment camps. The fear of spys and traitors caused us to over react and ruin the lives of thousands of US citizens.
------------------------

Not to bypass the 50's with a communist in every corner and hiding under your bed...and the Bircher's nuttery...

Which leads us to..."the more things change, the more they stay the same." Kinda.

Thanks for the responses but I'm still not sure anyone has answered the question. Certainly the Courts all the way up to the Supreme Court may ultimately rule on the issue of specific Constitutional Rights issues but that ruling will not come for several months or years after the event. My question is, under every day, normal circumstances, how do police on the street deal differently with citizens and non-citizens with respect to those rights.

Is there ever a circumstance where "innocent until proven guilty" does not apply?

Good Morning all. I like most everything about the new format, ESPECIALLY PREVIEW, but like BG I wish we could get the comments to appear a bit larger.

I don't understand how stripping rights and worrying about Miranda warnings is really making us any safer. I do understand about critiquing the situation after the fact, and it seems to me we have professionals who by and large are doing an incredible job. Other than letting him slip through the no fly lists...but even there one could point out that the multi faceted process DID work...it may have taken the third and final link to catch up with him but they basically got this guy, had him singing away...all within less than 72 hours. I think the PROFESSIONALS all did their jobs. It's micro managing to worry about whether Obama or Bush for that matter handled this situation..they are not the boots on the ground.

Furthermore why must we live lives of delusion and terror. We pay our law enforcement officials and Homeland Security to do the best they can...then we simply have to live with the fact that a lone terrorist..domestic or foreign..properly motivated and trained is virtually unstoppable. There will be successful terrorist attacks in this nation whether an R or a D sits in the Oval Office. Just as there will be hurricanes, tornadoes, and oil spills.

quarterbrain,
It appears that you are just as ignorant about the law on the new digs as you were on the last. If you actually were a lawyer you would never refer to Miranda "rights." Only a teabagger ignoramus like yourself would contend that being Mirandized is optional. A lawyer would understand that failure to Mirandize is the closest thing to a "get out of jail free" card that any defendant is likely to get.

That you ape this right wing conspiratorial paranoia with Miranda pegs you as nothing more than the typical teabagger "scholar."

"What you can be sure of is that all these people making confident and absolute declarations that any citizen has the "right" to be Mirandized and be tried in civilian court have little idea what they are talking about."

An American citizen arrested in New York for a criminal offense committed there has all the rights afforded every other American citizen, including Miranda and trial by jury in an Article III court. Your attempt to distinguish suspected "terrorism" offenders is wrong. There can be no valid determination whether someone has committed a terrorist act or has engaged in treasonous activity until there is a trial. That's what the trial is for. Contrary to your wish for an Alice In wonderland world, we don't do sentence first, verdict later in the United States.

"We pay our law enforcement officials and Homeland Security to do the best they can...then we simply have to live with the fact that a lone terrorist..domestic or foreign..properly motivated and trained is virtually unstoppable. There will be successful terrorist attacks in this nation whether an R or a D sits in the Oval Office. Just as there will be hurricanes, tornadoes, and oil spills."

ruk: Spot on. We Americans are turning into a nation of bedwetters. You do the best you can within the law and you hope for the best. Sometimes things go wrong. That's life.

Major General Paul Eaton, Ret U.S.Arny General, who was interviewed by Keith Olbermann on his May 4, 10 show, ripped the republicans a new one for playing political games with national security when they attacked the police officers, FBI and armed services officers who tracked down and arrested Faisal Shazad and the President.

Major General Paul Eaton was spot on in explaining that the republicans have been attacking law enforcement and the President since Jan, 09, for purely partisan reasons in an attempt to undermine President Obama.

I watched the interview three times because I don't remember anyone else making these statements in this way.

Can someone please explain to me why the independent voters will vote en masse for the republicans in the next election? This is the prediction by so many people including the republicans who say that they will gain 100 seats.

I have been asking this question for a long time but have yet to receive an answer that makes sense.

Hey Sammy2...
No, we independent voters are not stupid. We are very probably better informed and aware of events that the "average", (if there is such a thing), Dem or Repub simply because of where we stand politically. We reject the fringes of both groups, so we alienate both groups as a whole. We read sites like this on both sides of the aisle, so we are more familiar with the arguments from both ends of the political spectrum than anyone who sticks to blogs at one end or the other.
I submit to you the rather novel idea that I may know a little bit more about the ramifications of a political situation than you do simply because I take the time to look at both sides. Then I make a decision that is "crazy, low information, and uneducated".

What I said is not contrary to your point. Rather, it was part of my point -- that military jurisdiction versus a right to civilian trial still appears to depend in part on whether a person is a member of or agent of an enemy like al Queda. At least, that is a relevant question. I agree that we don't know enough about the Times Square bomber to know where he falls.

Since your rant contains no coherent thought or legal or factual point, I shall refrain from response.

wbgonne,

You cite no support for your bold declaration of law regarding rights to civilian trial. The last word on point from the Supreme Court (Quirin) and the district court in the Padilla case says you are wrong.

Liberman's proposed law might or might not pass review; perhaps it would be wise to suspend judgment until you actually understand what it is. In the meantime, any competent lawyer can see that you are overselling Afroyim. Your stridency and absolutism destroy your credibility.

I am amused that the gaseous commenter above does not appear to understand the difference between what people often refer to as "Miranda rights" and the notion they often refer to as a "right to be Mirandized."

Ponder that for a bit; perhaps you will come closer to understanding the issue.

QB: Did you even read Afroyim? It specifically holds that Congress CANNOT strip citizenship involuntarily. Period. Yet Jerkoff Joe wants to that to happen based on suspicion alone so that Miranda doesn't apply. Good luck with that one.

As for Quirin, in Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008), SCOTUS described Quirin as one of " two habeas cases involving enemy aliens tried for war crimes." Aliens. Not citizens.

Yes, Quirin did involve enemy aliens. It also involved a U.S. citizen, Herbert Haupt, who was executed with the others. The SCt specifically said it was unnecessary to resolve contentions over whether he was and remained a U.S. citizen.

The 4th Circuit held that Jose Padillo, a US citizen captured here, could be held in military detention. So, it isn't "as simple as that." If it were, you could the SCt case that so held, but there isn't one. What there are are a series of complicated cases spanning over a century and a half.

Your Afroyim argument begs the question of what is voluntary versus involuntary. Indeed, stated in such absolutist terms, your argument is flatly contradicted by such obvious cases as John Demjanjuk, who had his naturalization involuntarily stripped. You seem either unable or unwilling to notice the complexity of issues.

First, SCOTUS did not approve the 4th Circuit's ruling. Second, Padilla engaged in acts of war against the U.S. in Afghanistan. Third, some things are complicated; other things aren't. This one isn't. U.S. citizens arrested in the U.S. for crimes committed in the U.S. -- even treason -- have Constitutional rights. Finally, and most important: Why do you hate the Constitution so? Don't you understand that when rights are denied to unpopular or hated people they can be denied to us all?

quarterbrain,
YOU are the moron that contends the Constitution permits torture. YOU are the super legal genius that determined accurate verbatim quotes of bloated pig Limbaugh's racist diatribes constitutes libel. Now YOU seem to think that not reading Miranda rights to subjects is an option open to law enforcement. The rights exist whether or not they are read to suspects. The rights are not conferred at the point of Mirandization, merely articulated to the defendant. Yet, despite the obvious evidence that you don't know squat about the law, you persist in the sad little pathetic fiction that you are a lawyer. Who do you think is impressed by your painfully obvious lie?

It is axiomatic that those who actually accomplish things in real life do not need to brag about them anonymously on a blog. If you had actually accomplished the things you did, you could brag about them for real, yet somehow your boasts are always shrouded in shadowy vague details like "top 5 school."

Anybody that has read your posts recognizes that you are a posturing fraud who feels so inadequate about your own sorry existence that you have to create this clownish "I'm a lawyer" story to salve your fragile ego.

Nobody believes that you were Milk Monitor in your Con Law class or that you were Drum Major in your Law School Marching Band. Your whole personae IS a lie. You contribute nothing to this or any other discussion. And yet, buffoon that you are, you continue the lie. Since all of your discussions are premised upon this lie, why should anyone give a damn about anything you offer on any subject?

For a while there, I actually thought you were capable of sustaining a serious discussion. But I guess not.

"SCOTUS did not approve the 4th Circuit's ruling." No, nor did it disapprove it, since it never reviewed the ruling, which is true of most district and circuit court rulings. This means the ruling probably remains the latest word from the courts on the question, and it contradicts your strident position.

So, according to you, the matter is "clear" and "as simple as that," but a Court of Appeals ruling is the last word at this time and holds the opposite of what you stridently assert is the undisputed "clear" law. I wonder how the 4th Circuit missed the "clear" and simple controlling SCOTUS precedent you imagine answers this question.

"Second, Padilla engaged in acts of war against the U.S. in Afghanistan."

You fail to realize that you are actually arguing my position and contradicting your own with this assertion, since you are now purporting to make distinctions under which a US citizen arrested here is in fact subject to military jurisdiction.

Padilla was alleged to have fought against US forces in Afghanistan, but he also trained and conspired to carry out domestic terror upon returning to the U.S. There is nothing in the opinion that suggests that the Constitution would have required a different result if he had only done the latter. Rather, that would have made him just like Herbert Haupt, who was executed by the U.S. military after being captured on a Nazi sabotage mission. As you know, the 4th Circuit specifically relied on the Haupt precedent.

"Third, some things are complicated; other things aren't. This one isn't. U.S. citizens arrested in the U.S. for crimes committed in the U.S. -- even treason -- have Constitutional rights."

Yet again, this is merely your assertion, made without a single cited authority. If this is simple, where is the Supreme Court holding? Perhaps someday it will so hold, but for now we have the military execution of Herbert Haupt in Quirin and the vindication of military jurisdiction to detain Jose Padilla by the 4th Circuit.

For someone who so stridently asserts that the controlling law is "clear" and "simple," you've had a remarkably difficult time pointing us to it.

The Plumline world is weary of your pathetic obsession with me. We understand that you dwell in a fetid and angry state of insecurity and are stung by the fact that you are ignorant of the law among many other things. You need to give it up.

Your lies are tiresome as well. Really, your fantasies of my supposed boasting are sadly comical. Do you think people can't actually read what is said here?

Now, as to Limbaugh, you apparently never did your homework (a few seconds of websearching at best) and learned that you in fact posted fabricated quotations.

And as to this mess -- "Now YOU seem to think that not reading Miranda rights to subjects is an option open to law enforcement. The rights exist whether or not they are read to suspects. The rights are not conferred at the point of Mirandization, merely articulated to the defendant." -- you ought to have considered my last comment to you. The question is whether a given arrestee or detainee has 5th Am rights.

Since you can't even grasp the basic concepts underlying the discussion, you should be quiet while grownups are talking.

quarterbrain,
You allege that the quotes from bloated pedophile Limbaugh are fabricated. Which ones? I can provide links of Limbaugh actually saying many of them on video. Every single quote can be readily sourced and backed up. For someone who pretends to be a lawyer, you seem to be unable to rebut evidence with anything other than arrogant bluster. You CONSTANTLY rage and demand that others provide evidence to back up their assertions. I did and you accused me of libel without ever citing a fabricated quote. Someone who actually has ever practiced law would not be so infantile. Courts require a higher standard than “BECAUSE I SAY SO!”

I’ll be interested to see your rebuttal to specific quotes.

Again, if you were actually a lawyer, what possible reason would you have for bragging about it anonymously on a blog in shadowy, vague terms? You are not a lawyer, just some pathetic loser who is under the illusion that we will be impressed by your idle boasts. It is painfully obvious to all who read The Plumline that your ignorance about the law and the Constitution is expansive.

You cut and pasted a litany of allegations from a leftwing blog, assuming as you do that everything you find on leftwing blogs is true.

You claim that every quotation can be readily sourced and backed up. If you had tried, you would have found this was false. You are a reckless and mendacious liar, just like the "sources" upon which you rely.